Case Note & Summary
Background: This criminal appeal arose from a prosecution under the Factories Act, 1948 against the manager of an oil mill after a workman suffered severe injury. The State of Gujarat appealed by special leave against the acquittal affirmed by the Gujarat High Court. The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court. Facts: The respondent was manager of an oil mill. The mill had a spur gear wheel which was a dangerous part of machinery. A workman while greasing the spur gear wheel in motion had his hand caught, and had to be amputated. At the time of accident the cover/guard for the wheel was absent, though it had been provided earlier; bolts for fixing it to the base existed but the cover was not there. There was no evidence when it was last in position. The workman said the respondent removed it for repairs; respondent said the workman removed it himself. Trial court unable to accept either version, acquitted on view that manager cannot be liable if cover removed by someone without his consent or knowledge. High Court affirmed, reasoning that in a criminal case accused not bound to explain, prosecution must establish default, and Act did not require manager to always look out for offenders who removed safeguard. Legal Issues: Whether absence of guard when dangerous machine in operation constituted contravention of s.21(1)(iv)(c) punishable under s.92; whether burden was on prosecution to prove who removed guard or whether manager had knowledge; whether manager could claim ignorance as defence; relevance of s.101. Arguments: The appellant State argued that obligation to keep guard in position was absolute and continuing; once absence proved, accused had to establish due diligence; Section 101 provides only permissible defence and removal by unknown person with due diligence requirement. The respondent's earlier defence was that workman removed guard and he had no knowledge, consent or connivance; High Court accepted that unknown removal not reasonably foreseeable and no duty to anticipate. The respondent did not appear before Supreme Court. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court held that s.21(1)(iv)(c) imposes duty not only to fence but to keep guard in position while machinery in motion or use. The default was admitted: fencing absent while machine working. Mere fact that someone else removed guard without knowledge, consent or connivance did not provide defence. Once statutory default shown, burden shifts to accused to prove non-liability, perhaps by showing unavoidable breakdown or due diligence. The respondent gave no evidence of what he did to ensure guard remained, only that he did not know what happened, which was no defence. Section 101 showed even if accused proves another removed guard without knowledge, consent or connivance, he must further prove due diligence to enforce Act; same duty applies when offender unknown. Otherwise object of protecting workmen would be defeated. Decision: Appeal allowed; acquittals set aside; respondent convicted under s.92 for contravening s.21(1)(iv)(c); fined Rs.200 with one week simple imprisonment in default.
Headnote
A) Factories Act - Dangerous Machinery Fencing - Section 21(1)(iv)(c) Factories Act, 1948 - Mandatory continuing duty to keep guard in position while machinery in motion; absence of guard during operation constitutes default - The respondent manager had provided a guard over a dangerous spur gear wheel but it was absent while the machine was in motion causing injury. The Court held that the statutory duty is not discharged by providing the guard; it must be kept in position, and mere proof of absence is sufficient to establish breach. Held that the manager was liable under Section 92 for having failed to carry out the terms of Section 21(1)(iv)(c). (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Law - Burden of Proof in Statutory Offences - Factories Act, 1948 Sections 21, 92 - Once default under absolute duty is shown, accused must prove non-liability; ignorance of who removed guard is no defence - The High Court had held that prosecution must establish default and that the accused need not explain. The Supreme Court disagreed, observing that the statute cast a duty on the occupier or manager to keep the guard in position; once absence was shown, the onus shifted to the respondent to establish that he was not liable. The respondent offered no evidence of due diligence and his only point was that he did not know what happened to the guard, which was no defence. Held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus and was liable. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Factories Act - Defence of Actual Offender and Due Diligence - Section 101 Factories Act, 1948 - Removal of fence by another without knowledge, consent or connivance does not exempt unless due diligence proved - Section 101 entitles an occupier or manager to have the actual offender brought before the court and to be discharged only if he proves due diligence to enforce the Act and that the other person committed the offence without his knowledge, consent or connivance. The Court reasoned that if due diligence was required when the offender was known, it was equally required when the offender was unknown; otherwise the Act's purpose of protecting workmen would be defeated. Held that the respondent had offered no such defence and could not escape liability. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the absence of a safety guard on dangerous machinery, removed by an unknown person without the manager's knowledge, consent or connivance, absolved the manager from liability under Section 21(1)(iv)(c) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgments of the trial court and High Court set aside; respondent convicted under Section 92 for contravening Section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Factories Act, 1948; fined Rs.200, in default one week's simple imprisonment.
Law Points
- Section 21(1)(iv)(c) Factories Act imposes absolute and continuing duty to keep dangerous machinery securely fenced while in motion
- mere absence of guard during operation is a statutory default
- removal by an unknown person without knowledge
- consent or connivance is not a defence
- once default is shown
- onus shifts to occupier or manager to prove non-liability
- Section 101 requires due diligence to enforce the Act even when actual offender is unknown
- ignorance of what happened to guard is no defence
